"We'll See"


#1

I have frequently defended President Trump–some people seem utterly obsessed with his (rather unpleasant) personality–but there is one propensity that he has that I do, indeed, find a bit troublesome: It is the tendency to answer an uncomfortable question with the meaningless phrase, “We’ll see.”

I find myself wondering if it would not be better to declare, simply: “I would rather not address that point at this time. Are there any other questions?”

This would certainly be more straightforward–and far less coy.


#2

If you live (or drive) in New York, you’ll understand him and his his “rather unpleasant personality” a bit more.


#3

One thing that he is doing and we see it in almost every issue that he touches… putting the responsibility for that issue back were it belongs… congress, the courts, the states, the individual. While he may have his drothers and would express them in anything that might come to his desk to sign, how those issues turn out, is not his to decide. He pushed Obamacare back to congress… we will see. He stated early in his campaign that he wanted a ‘repeal’ … later that changed to needing a fix… ‘repeal and replace’… what that would be was a congressional discussion… ‘We Will See’. Like wise with immigration. Their is a point at which he will not sign a law but exactly how that law will be formulated is not his to say… ‘‘We will See’’. Besides, he plays his game of chess far better than we know. He gave dems enough rope to hang themselves over ‘immigration compromise’ and then called them out… they now have a far weaker hand and it shows by their focus on the ‘shithole’ comment…


#4

I’ve always though that from a Texas perspective, New Yorkers were brash and rude… I’m sure that for all of his ‘self control’ Chuckie Schumer has had a few rather unpleasant meltdowns in the past…


#5

That’s just what he says when he has no earthly idea what he’s going to do. It depends on what Fox and Friends says that morning.


#6

Well I and many others think he acts more and more like the common Joe , he prefers to speak off the cuff and not have every f-ing word out of his mouth be something spin doctors hand him . His shithole comment is a great example , liberals cringe and point at the sky screaming stupid shit and act as though they never in the sheltered life hear such language , give me a break ! When President Trump talks off the cuff it’s similar to "shop talk " in most plants in the US . If you want prepared speeches visit most embassies !!


#7

That explains why Republicans and Democrats who tangle with him end up getting played like a fiddle each and every time.


#8

If you read art of the deal, you can find it that his mind set is quite consistent even after years and years later. A fascinating read.


#9

I agree that President Trump’s “shithole” comment–although inelegant (and ineloquent–and even crude) is typical of the way that many ordinary people speak. (One almost feels that a Victorian-era “fainting couch” is necessary here, for those who might get the vapors over this comment.)

But that is not what I was addressing here.

Rather, I was addressing his propensity to use the terse (and meaningless) phrase, “We’ll see,” whenever he is asked an uncomfortable question–rather than expanding upon it just a bit.


#10

And would you rather he puffs up hot air and draws you in circular logic that, in the end, addresses nothing related to your original question? Here is an example of it


#11

I’m certain every time he has expanded his comment they were taken out of context by the media who love twisting words . Most of the media questions fired at the President are like no other president has EVER had to address , they are rude , personal , and meant to piss him off . So “We’ll see,” we’ll do !!!


#12


This is the reason we get “We’ll see,” :roll_eyes:


#13

The conclusion–that I would (presumably) prefer that President Trump “puffs up hot air and draws [me] in circular logic that, in the end, addresses nothing” relevant–is a false alternative.

My stated objective was as follows:

“I find myself wondering if it would not be better to declare, simply: “‘I would rather not address that point at this time. Are there any other questions?’”

Better not to create a strawman, and then hastily knock it down…


#14

And youre stumbling over Trump’s language use for what? If you want to say those exact words and act exactly as you want, run for president. He achieves a similar effect in 2 words rather than 15. And if you consider "I would rather not address that point at this time. Are there any other questions?” more straight forward and less coy, I think we have a fundamental disagreement there.


#15

I don’t know that he is being particularly ambiguous. He release a 70 point positon on DACA, security and immigration reform. Would all of those points be adopted by a congress that he has no control over?.. I doubt it and I am sure that he does too. Would he like all of his points adopted?.. Yes… Is it a wise idea for him to blurt out his absolute minimum for his signature… No. So to say that ‘We’ll See’ isn’t really insincere when the outcome is unknown.


#16

Supperhey,[quote=“supperhey, post:14, topic:6419, full:true”]
And youre stumbling over Trump’s language use for what? If you want to say those exact words and act exactly as you want, run for president. He achieves a similar effect in 2 words rather than 15. And if you consider "I would rather not address that point at this time. Are there any other questions?” more straight forward and less coy, I think we have a fundamental disagreement there.


[/quote]

Do you mean, by this, that the president is vested with some special right to use the language as he sees fit–a right that the rest of us do not enjoy? (If that is, indeed, the case, then I must have overlooked it, in the Constitution.)

And I guess we do have “a fundamental disagreement” here. “We’ll see” is condescending, terse, and imprecise. What I suggested is truly straightforward.

(By the way, I will reiterate that I am a conservative; and I consider Donald Trump far superior to the alternative–i.e. Hillary Clinton–and I agree with him on most policy matters. But I do not play for any “team”–so I will continue to speak what I believe–even if it is uncongenial to one particular “team.”)


#17

Yes and no. The President enjoys the right of the first amendment as much as you and I do. The President is an action-oriented man (you can read all about in his semi-biography “The Art of the Deal”) amd not a wordy politician. “We’ll see” is an action-orientated phrase, short of “We’ll see [when I do it]”. I voted for Trump so he can do, not dance.

“I would rather not address that point at this time. Are there any other questions?”

How is this not imprecise and coy, a promise to an answer to the current question while hastily jumping onto the next? I have posted two videos comparing him with Justin Trudeu and Russel Brand, and I suggest you revisit them.


#18

It is certainly not coy–in fact, it is quite straightforward–to declare that one would rather not address a certain point at the moment. On the other hand, “We’ll see” is both terse and meaningless. (Some might even say a bit rude.)

By the way, I voted for Trump also–as the old saying goes, he needed to be compared to the alternative, not to the Almighty–but I am not thereby foreclosed from criticizing his actions when they seem to merit criticism.


#19

But then again he’s not a polished politician that has years of training in the way of saying something that means nothing.


#20

The interesting thing, Did he say it?

Do you believe Dick Durban?

Do we know the context in which it may have been said?

I find it amazing how A democrat says he said it backed any a RINO and no one els in the room heard it. Yet it’s now gospel.